Downgrading from Cable to DSL

[Grownman]

Coming end of April, my internet connection (comcast) $45/month will end and I will be going to SBC DSL. I do not know which connection to choose. If I am planning on just using the internet to view videos on youtube, watch movies online, email, and instant message what package should I purchase?

Basic DSL $19.95/month Downstream Speed: Up to 768 Kbps
Upstream Speed: Up to 384 Kbps

Express DSL $25/month Downstream Speed: Up to 1.5 Mbps
Upstream Speed: Up to 384 Kbps

Pro DSL $30/month Downstream Speed: Up to 3.0 Mbps
Upstream Speed: Up to 512 Kbps


Elite DSL $35/month Downstream Speed: Up to 6.0 Mbps
Upstream Speed: Up to 768 Kbps

Now if i including gaming such as wow, bf2142, tf2, l4d cs:s games like those need what type of a connection?

Comcast here in the Bay Area of CA has been very slow, I believe for the $45/month is advertised as up to 15Mb/s <- during off peak times I get about 5-8Mb/s and during peak times when everyone comes home, the internet can get so slow I will need to refresh the page to load it and sometimes requires me to power cycle to modem and router.....
Unfortunatly, internet is one of the things we are cutting back on and with dsl I will not be sharing my connection with anyone except other people in the house. Does this mean the advertised 6mbps elite DSL connection will be around the 5-6mbps 24/7?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I'd probably go with Express. 1.5 Mb/s is enough for standard definition video streaming so long as you don't have lots of computers sharing the connection.

DSL should have no dips. The connection speed they say it is should be close to what you actually get. Cable bandwidth is pooled; DSL is dedicated.

 

[AsRock]

More upload the better. I my self would have to go with Elite or another company lol. as not elite is not fast enough on upload for what i need in some of my games.

 

[Grownman]

Here in the bay area its comcast or SBC DSL connection =[ thanks for the advice and would be 1.5 be sufficient for gaming? At the most it will just be only 3 people max sharing the line at once in the house.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's fine to join someone else's game server but it will struggle to host a game server.


Do any of those other people do a lot of downloading stuff (torrents, videos, etc.)? It really comes down to patience and willingness to pay more or not.

 

[ktr]

I am also in the bay area, I changed from Comcast to AT&T Elite DSL some time ago, and the performance is EQUAL (if not better) to comcast cable, and cost much less.

with Comcast, I used to get on average about 500KBytes/s, and now with DSL...it is 600KBytes/s, and twice the upload speed, and lower latency than cable!

Now performance can vary based on location and other factors.

 

[mrw1986]

I have AT&T Pro DSL. I've had it for about 8 years now. It plays ALL of my online games just fine (I play in excess of 20 different online games).

I also work for AT&T and the Pro speed is our most popular choice. However, if you can get the Elite I say its worth the extra $5...unfortunately the Pro is the highest available to me.

 

[RevengE]

I used to have SBC express and it was fast enough, I have pro now it's a tad bit faster but not a whole lot.

 

[Deleted member 3]

More upload the better. I my self would have to go with Elite or another company lol. as not elite is not fast enough on upload for what i need in some of my games.

Interesting, what kind of games send that much data? Considering the limit of ADSL is 1Mbit either way, many people on the planet must struggle to play your games.

 

[mrhuggles]

i think thats mostly crap btw, about the bandwidth sharing, im on dsl, a bunch of ppl hook up to a "dslam dealy[?]" and that hooks up to their stuff with a t1 or t3 or fiber or something like that, one way or another at some point your gonna be sharing bandwidth, thats the whole point of an isp, the key is what kind of a ratio they are using splitting their bandwidth to the users trust me you totally can have problems with too many users on a node[?] in fact why don't you go over to broadband reports and look at the forum for the prospective ISP and see what its like in your area. thats prolly the best advice anyone ever gave anyone on that subject.

 

[Mussels]

i like my dsl.

I'm yet to run into a game that wont run on a 512/128 connection, i prefer 1500/256 for some room for VOIP etc.

 

[newtekie1]

I've got the Elite package, and it is definitely worth the extra $5 if you do a lot of downloading. Otherwise the Pro package is more than enough.

 

[3870x2]

I'd probably go with Express. 1.5 Mb/s is enough for standard definition video streaming so long as you don't have lots of computers sharing the connection.

DSL should have no dips. The connection speed they say it is should be close to what you actually get. Cable bandwidth is pooled; DSL is dedicated.

Express seems like a great Idea. Alternatively, I would stick with the cable. DSL is pretty dated, much less powerful, slower latency, and less dependable.

 

[Mussels]

oh and as a random addin, i thought cable was still using half duplex technology, thus having higher pings than DSL (which is full duplex).

That might just be an Au thing, but i definately was taught that when i did my networking course.

I was also definately taught that cable tends to share one line per area (city block, region, whatever) so you share a bandwidth pool with other (immediate area) users. DSL is a dedicated line that no one shares, therefore the only times your speeds dip is if your ISP is overselling the bandwidth, and the ISP is out (not local/not immediate area)

 

[mrhuggles]

i think either technology can be good, here at qwest their tiers are neat, if you get 1.5mbit downstream they give you 960k upstream instead of like the 128k that most isps would give you

 

[3870x2]

As to my previous post, I can only speak for north america.

 

[DonInKansas]

As to my previous post, I can only speak for north america.

...The parts of North America where cable is an option. We have only one phone/high speed internet company where I live and they do DSL, and make you have a landline and pay for it.

Still cheaper than satellite, my only other "high speed" option.....

 

[Bokteelo]

You will NOT enjoy 768. Your download speeds off major websites are capped at around 90, and when one person starts downloading/torrenting/uploading you'll feel the lag. I can barely manage to watch Youtube videos on 768. I'm switching over to 10MB cable this Tuesday, and I've been lapping around my bed in joy.

 

[kid41212003]

I don't have any problems with AT&T DSL, I used to have the Elite Package when i were living in Louisana, and I'm using the Pro package when I moved to CA. All online performed the same, it just I have better download speed with the Elite (~650KB/s vs 320KB/s).

 

[Homeless]

I'd say Pro is the minimum you'd need for gaming with voip. Without voip 384k upload is sufficient for gaming. I'd personally get the $35/m package if you use your connection a lot as you'll be getting the most out of it

 

[newtekie1]

Express seems like a great Idea. Alternatively, I would stick with the cable. DSL is pretty dated, much less powerful, slower latency, and less dependable.

DSL isn't any more dated than Cable, they are both old dated technologies.

I assume by "much less powerful" you mean less speed. This isn't always accurate. In some areas cable speeds can be more than double DSL's download speeds. However, in others, cable speeds can be painfully slow(this seems to be the case in the OP's area). Once the cable in the area gets oversold, speeds start to drastically drop during peak usage times. My neighbor has cable, and I have DSL. I get ~5Mb/s download all day long, my neighbor gets ~16Mb/s download, but only between about 2AM and 8AM and 10AM and 4PM, the rest of the time he is lucky to get 1Mb/s download, still fast enough to surf the internet, but that is about it.

As for latency, this also varies from area to area and with cable latencies can be huge during peak usage times and great other times. Distances from the backbone also play a huge part in this, and cable runs are usually a lot further from the backbone, leading to larger latencies.

And dependability on cable, at least in my area, is a utter joke. We suffer daily outages, for absolutely no reason. And on top of the daily outages are the constant slowdowns. DSL is generally known for being the more dependable service, while being slightly slower. But I would rather have a dependable service that is slightly slower than have to worry about even having working internet.

Again, most of this varies from location to location. So really it is up to the OP to figure out what is best in his area. However, from his discription of his cable service, DSL might be the better option on all fronts.

As to my previous post, I can only speak for north america.

No, you can't speak for North America, you can't even speak for your state. The differences in service can greatly vary, even from city to city. I can travel 150 Miles from where I live, to the town I went to college in, and I'll still be in the same state, but the DSL service there is utter shit and the cable service is wonderful. So I don't know how you can speak for all of North America, when it can vary that greatly in just a 150 Mile range.

 

[mrw1986]

DSL isn't any more dated than Cable, they are both old dated technologies.

I assume by "much less powerful" you mean less speed. This isn't always accurate. In some areas cable speeds can be more than double DSL's download speeds. However, in others, cable speeds can be painfully slow(this seems to be the case in the OP's area). Once the cable in the area gets oversold, speeds start to drastically drop during peak usage times. My neighbor has cable, and I have DSL. I get ~5Mb/s download all day long, my neighbor gets ~16Mb/s download, but only between about 2AM and 8AM and 10AM and 4PM, the rest of the time he is lucky to get 1Mb/s download, still fast enough to surf the internet, but that is about it.

As for latency, this also varies from area to area and with cable latencies can be huge during peak usage times and great other times. Distances from the backbone also play a huge part in this, and cable runs are usually a lot further from the backbone, leading to larger latencies.

And dependability on cable, at least in my area, is a utter joke. We suffer daily outages, for absolutely no reason. And on top of the daily outages are the constant slowdowns. DSL is generally known for being the more dependable service, while being slightly slower. But I would rather have a dependable service that is slightly slower than have to worry about even having working internet.

Again, most of this varies from location to location. So really it is up to the OP to figure out what is best in his area. However, from his discription of his cable service, DSL might be the better option on all fronts.



No, you can't speak for North America, you can't even speak for your state. The differences in service can greatly vary, even from city to city. I can travel 150 Miles from where I live, to the town I went to college in, and I'll still be in the same state, but the DSL service there is utter shit can the cable service is wonderful. So I don't know how you can speak for all of North America, when it can vary that greatly in just a 150 Mile range.

Couldn't agree more, well said!

 

[ktr]

oh and as a random addin, i thought cable was still using half duplex technology, thus having higher pings than DSL (which is full duplex).

That might just be an Au thing, but i definately was taught that when i did my networking course.

I was also definately taught that cable tends to share one line per area (city block, region, whatever) so you share a bandwidth pool with other (immediate area) users. DSL is a dedicated line that no one shares, therefore the only times your speeds dip is if your ISP is overselling the bandwidth, and the ISP is out (not local/not immediate area)

Yes, cable is half-duplex, but it got a little smarter over the years. When a packet needs to go up-bound, the modem will momentarily stop the down-bound packet...so that it can slide the up-bound packet through. To compensate the slight delay, cable companies increased the download speed.

And yes again, cable is a shared connection with other cable users, while DSL is a direct connection from your demarc point all the way to the local hub.

You will NOT enjoy 768. Your download speeds off major websites are capped at around 90, and when one person starts downloading/torrenting/uploading you'll feel the lag. I can barely manage to watch Youtube videos on 768. I'm switching over to 10MB cable this Tuesday, and I've been lapping around my bed in joy.

I think your getting your Bits and Bytes mixed up.

ISP rates their connections in bits, but most to all software (web browser, torrent, etc) displays the speed in bytes.

There are 8-bits to 1-byte.

So a 768Kb/s (big "K" for kilo, little "b" for bit) is 96KB/s (big "K" for kilo, big "B" for byte)...

Anyways, your getting what you paid for DSL.

Now your cable is NOT giving you 10MB/s, but 10Mb/s....which is 1.25MB/s

And that is during non-peak hours (ie: hours that you are @ work or school), because the connection is shared with other cable users.

 

[mrw1986]

Yes, cable is half-duplex, but it got a little smarter over the years. When a packet needs to go up-bound, the modem will momentarily stop the down-bound packet...so that it can slide the up-bound packet through. To compensate the slight delay, cable companies increased the download speed.

And yes again, cable is a shared connection with other cable users, while DSL is a direct connection from your demarc point all the way to the local hub.



I think your getting your Bits and Bytes mixed up.

ISP rates their connections in bits, but most to all software (web browser, torrent, etc) displays the speed in bytes.

There are 8-bits to 1-byte.

So a 768Kb/s (big "K" for kilo, little "b" for bit) is 96KB/s (big "K" for kilo, big "B" for byte)...

Anyways, your getting what you paid for DSL.

Now your cable is NOT giving you 10MB/s, but 10Mb/s....which is 1.25MB/s

And that is during non-peak hours (ie: hours that you are @ work or school), because the connection is shared with other cable users.

Correct, that 1.25MB/s is still faster than DSL Elite (600KB/s)...I'm still a DSL person though. It's been more reliable for me over the years than any cable service has.

 

[Grownman]

thanks so much for the help and great responses, looks like we will be going with either the pro or the elite package. Both are available to where I live =D
(trying to convince parents to get the elite for an extra $5 + 2x dl speed as pro)